733:- I'm assuming none of the IPs here have ever studied Physics and Chemistry... Also, every single one seems to be ignoring the fact that the nominator claims it doesn't exist, which is the sole grounds for nomination, thus this should've been closed. I'm concerned by the similar formatting of the IPs as well (the fact they all use support/strong support, and none of them sign their comments). 194.126.226.123 has completely ignored every single source in this AfD: and made completely irrelevant comments about the fact it doesn't have its own course (that would be because it is a module, or within a module...). 115.87.208.163 has made irrelevant comments about the original author of this, since the original author hasn't edited since 2011, and nor have any of the "alleged socks" edited since then, therefore this article is perfectly fixable. 203.163.103.7 makes partially, at least, incorrect statements about glass (I'm British, so don't try throwing in the "only Americans think this" point) and fully incorrect statements about pottery (which is blatantly a ceramic by any definition). I suggest the IPs read
829:
words from my sentences doesn't help (I said "partially, at least, incorrect statements about glass" - not incorrect statements) and my comments about people's backgrounds are simply because if you do have a physics or chemistry background, assuming it's not totally the organic side of chemistry, you'd know ceramic chemistry was notable. If the US are the only country to view glass as a ceramic, it still belongs there, just mentioning the fact that only the
Americans view it as a ceramic. My point about being British is that a lot of people would try to deviate from the topic by saying something irrelevant about Americans trying to own everything (or words to that effect). Also, was it not you who made the statement "'The chemistry of pottery' whereas this article is 'Ceramic chemistry': clearly related but is not the same."? If so, they're not the same, but they are still related and, as such, belong in the same article. Another example of ceramic chemistry is in ceramic exhaust coverings, where a ceramic is applied to improve heat dissipation and thus keep the exhaust cool - I haven't found a truly
517:(1) "I wish, if this IP was going to canvass people" If you mean me then I have not canvassed anyone, (2) "There is little or no evidence that it was created by just one person", there is plenty of evidence, and this has been presented by other people. (3) "glass is a ceramic" this depends who is consulted. The classification of glass as a ceramic material is common in the US but less so in many other places. Many consider crystalline content to be a key part of ceramic material, and of course this would exclude glasses. I make no claim as to who is 'right' and who is 'wrong', but the inconsistency in definition means it is not possible to make such a definitive statement, (4) "why the hell, mr IP, are you arguing that the Chemistry of pottery is not part of the Chemistry of ceramics?" I did not, and (5) please could you not address profanities to me; this is both rude and unconstructive.
499:
entirely, as it doesn't belong there. There is little or no evidence that it was created by just one person - I see three different accounts that have contributed majorly: 2 of which are SPAs and may be the same person, but the other has contributions outside the article. An article being promotional is not a grounds for deletion unless it was unrescuable - and this one was rescuable. By the way, for people whom didn't study
Chemistry or Physics, glass is a ceramic, as is pottery (why the hell, mr IP, are you arguing that the Chemistry of pottery is not part of the Chemistry of ceramics?). AfD is not cleanup, nor is it for merger discussions. That's what the article talk is for. Hence why this AfD should be closed ASAP.
770:"incorrect statements about glass" This is wrong. As stated previously the classification of glass as a ceramic material is common in the US but less so in many other places. For example: Glass not included: (1) EU - the Combined Nomenclature defines ceramic products as “obtained by agglomerating (by firing) earths or other materials with a high melting point generally mixed with binders, all of which materials have been previously reduced to powders or, from rock fired after shaping. Firing, after shaping, is the
454:, cover the subject far better. 'Ceramic chemistry' is not notable given its inclusion in, the widely accepted terms, listed in the previous sentence. The removal of this article is simply a useful & valuable tidy up of material with no value: a bit of house-keeping. Should parts of this be considered of value (and potentially there's little, if any) then extract & add to the existing, superior articles & delete this mess.
787:.” Where as for glasses to be include: (1) US - ASTM C242 defines a ceramic article as “an article having a glazed or unglazed body of crystalline or partly crystalline structure, or of glass, which body is produced from essentially inorganic, non-metallic substances and either is formed from a molten mass which solidifies on cooling, or is formed and simultaneously or subsequently matured by the action of the heat.”
1041:
438:- it's a dreadfully badly written & flawed article .. and it rambles all over the place. Also, as has been noted by many people the article was created by an individual (who also spammed many other articles) to promote his commercial activities. What is classed here as 'ceramic chemistry' is part of the accepted disciplines of ceramic science and
741:. Anyone claiming ceramic chemistry doesn't exist is ignoring all sources presented here, let alone logic, and there are plenty of reliable sources presented by myself and Mike Agricola (no, I'm NOT arguing the spammer's website was a reliable source, I only presented that to show this subject matter exists!) to show the notability of this.
828:
My attitude is one of pure annoyance at people whom have downright ignored everything I've provided here, even before I became a bit combative - remember, my original comment was simply to show that the nomination was completely invalid, which it definitely is. Deliberately misquoting me by removing
416:
Both Mike
Agricola and Lukeno94 have demonstrated multiple reliable sources that go in depth on the subject of ceramic chemistry. Looking at the article and talk page comments, it is clear that the article mainly discusses one aspect of ceramic chemistry, which could be considered a non-neutral POV,
498:
I wish, if this IP was going to canvass people, they'd sign their posts properly. Being badly written and flawed is not a reason for deletion. The ONLY reason for deletion given by the nominator was that this subject matter doesn't exist: which is utter, utter bullshit. I've nuked the Raku section
782:
and glass ceramics by the fact that they are first shaped and then rendered permanent by firing at a temperature generally in excess of 1000oC.”, and (3) Even
Knowledge (XXG) recognizes that a crystalline content can be a key part of the definition of ceramics, and hence glasses are excluded -
603:
Swearing is unnecessary, yes, but it is also valid in a case when the nominator has claimed this subject doesn't exist. That's the entire grounds for this nomination, hence why the AfD should be closed... The chemistry of ceramics is notable, and the article is definitely savable - I nuked the
548:. I looked at the other mentioned articles and a discussion of ceramic chemistry would not fit well in the existing articles. (And I am very much a merge-ist.) Even though what we have is not beautiful, would just leave it alone as half-built Wiki article.
767:"I'm assuming none of the IPs here have ever studied Physics and Chemistry" You have now moved from the use of profanities to belittling people's academic backgrounds. This is also rude and unconstructive, and, in my case at least, incorrect.
670:- an article created by a spammer on an unrecognised discipline that is awfully written and full of errors. And we are debating its deletion??? BTW - ceramic engineering is the recognised discipline, and university courses include: France
575:- many faults and beyond rescue. And in respect of a preceeding comment re. the authorship: swearing is unnecessary, and the following clearly demonstrates that the article was created by a spammer promoting his business{
1064:. I'm satisfied that sources for the chemistry of ceramics exist, and am somewhat taken aback by the suggestion that it somehow doesn't exist at a topic. Whether this article is redundant to or should be merged with
183:
481:. The article has some issues, especially the concentration on Raku. However, chemistry of ceramics is very inherentrl notable topic (per others, plus my experience...it is not a random combination of things).
871:
874:
915:
I looked at that, but the content does not really fit well in those articles. It is too much of a technical discursion. Actually look at the articles and think how to merge the content.
136:
417:
but there is nothing preventing folks from filling out the article with a more general approach. In short, the topic is highly notable and the article problems surmountable per
361:
is not support, as this is the commercial site of the person who created this
Knowledge (XXG) article, and spammed other articles with the same, simply to promote his business.
955:
82:
868:
778:
in which the vitrifiable compound has undergone complete fusion”, (2) UK - BS5416 defined ceramics as “materials generally made from a mixture of clays and other materials,
177:
935:
1033:- the subject is notable and there are primary and secondary sources as provided by users MarkAgricola, Diego and Lukeno94; I'll add this notable book, published by
834:
385:
this link also does not add support as the title is 'The chemistry of pottery' whereas this article is 'Ceramic chemistry': clearly related but is not the same.
56:
is to keep this page. Any concerns about the quality of the article and whether it should be merged may be addressed through the normal editing processes. --
143:
793:"fully incorrect statements about pottery (which is blatantly a ceramic by any definition)." No idea; I have never stated that pottery is not ceramic.
1038:
272:
by ordinary editing. My concern is that the topic may not be sufficiently differentiated from material already covered in other articles such as
716:
704:
653:
109:
104:
585:
113:
340:. A concern about whether this merits a standalone article is irrelevant: this AfD is trolling, very bad faith and should be incinerated.
820:
533:
470:
401:
377:
318:
302:
Full agreement with your suggestion that it's not sufficiently differentiated, and it should be covered in the other articles you note.
96:
790:"I'm British, so don't try throwing in the "only Americans think this" point)" I do not understand why you being British is relevant.
17:
634:
Further to your reply to 115.87.208.163: profanities are rude and unconstructive. And your defense of it is certainly counter to
737:
as pointed out by Mike viking, and realize that articles have been fixed from far worse states than this - see my comment about
336:
264:. I agree with comments on the Talk page that the article as it is currently written has serious issues, but it may still have
198:
897:
this article contains anything good then add to the other, much better, articles mentioned (ceramic engineering, pottery, etc)
165:
635:
1107:
53:
40:
785:
definition of ceramic is often restricted to inorganic crystalline materials, as opposed to the noncrystalline glasses
334:
159:
902:
720:
649:
604:
irrelevant stuff; the relevant stuff can be sorted. I can validly state this is savable - look at the history of
564:
734:
418:
269:
1088:
1056:
1023:
999:
967:
947:
924:
906:
885:
853:
758:
724:
677:
625:
593:
508:
490:
430:
349:
293:
223:
65:
589:
155:
1043:), researches and experts in this very field. As a side note, the title of the article should be renamed to
816:
529:
466:
397:
373:
314:
289:
219:
808:
800:
concerned about your attitude, which is to insult and swear at those who hold a different view to yourself.
712:
641:
581:
552:
521:
458:
389:
365:
306:
898:
645:
100:
265:
205:
1103:
848:
812:
753:
620:
525:
504:
462:
426:
393:
369:
345:
310:
285:
36:
358:
not sure if it is correct to add comment under other's comments, so please excuse me if not. This link
1034:
881:
61:
1065:
837:
742:
609:
500:
451:
439:
341:
281:
191:
978:
683:
1052:
692:
215:
1009:
836:. I know it has its own topic at Knowledge (XXG), but it's still a branch of ceramic chemistry.
707:
171:
963:
943:
277:
92:
72:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1102:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1085:
422:
877:
686:
57:
830:
233:
671:
1018:
994:
1048:
920:
560:
486:
680:
959:
939:
738:
605:
1037:
in 1986, to the list of primary sources: "Science of
Ceramic Chemical Processing"
130:
258:
251:
244:
237:
1081:
1040:. The subject is relevant and there are a plethora of peer-reviewed books (see
689:
701:
576:
236:
exist to write a detailed article about the chemistry of ceramics, including:
981:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
1014:
990:
695:
916:
698:
556:
482:
1068:
is beyond the scope of an AfD discussion. I would also point out that "
447:
443:
273:
359:
338:
1096:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1047:
as it's a more accurate and scientific depiction of the topic.
876:
that describe ceramic chemistry, not just ceramic engineering.
674:
774:
and mineral or stone articles, which are generally not fired,
608:
to see how I fixed a much, much worse article than this one.
253:
High temperature chemistry of inorganic and ceramic materials
833:
on it, but it's been mentioned in Evo magazine, and here:
126:
122:
118:
190:
988:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
783:“Because most common ceramics are crystalline, the
284:
to warrant a separate
Ceramic chemistry article. --
204:
442:. Existing Knowledge (XXG) articles, that include
268:were it to be rewritten; quality problems can be
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1110:). No further edits should be made to this page.
956:list of Technology-related deletion discussions
772:essential distinction between ceramic products
577:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Tonywhansen}
421:, which suggests that this article be kept. --
8:
1012:and discuss the merits of the subject only.
954:Note: This debate has been included in the
936:list of Science-related deletion discussions
934:Note: This debate has been included in the
333:- ceramic chemistry doesn't exist? Bullshit.
953:
933:
1072:" opinions are ambiguous; we usually say
867:per sources provided by Luke as well as
83:Articles for deletion/Ceramic chemistry
80:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1086:killing the human spirit since 2003!
546:Hard to merge, better to leave alone
79:
1008:Please let's keep this discussion
893:- non-notable & unrecognized.
24:
709:. And ceramic chemistry? None
246:Chemical Processing of Ceramics
1:
1089:15:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
1057:13:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
1024:11:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
1000:11:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
968:15:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
948:15:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
925:16:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
907:12:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
886:07:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
854:08:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
759:11:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
725:10:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
626:09:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
594:08:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
509:08:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
491:06:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
431:23:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
350:22:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
294:20:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
224:19:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
66:16:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
1045:Ceramic Chemical Processing
214:Subject matter nonexistent
1127:
536:) 04:44, 18 February 2013‎
239:The Chemistry of Ceramics
1099:Please do not modify it.
780:distinguished from glass
255:(Chemical Society, 1977)
32:Please do not modify it.
78:AfDs for this article:
1076:if we wish it kept,
1066:ceramic engineering
823:) 20 February 2013‎
656:) 18 February 2013‎
636:assuming good faith
567:) 15 February 2013‎
473:) 15 February 2013‎
452:ceramic engineering
440:ceramic engineering
404:) 15 February 2013‎
380:) 15 February 2013‎
321:) 15 February 2013‎
282:Ceramic engineering
262:(Davis Bros., 1912)
776:and glass articles
1026:
1002:
970:
950:
825:
811:comment added by
715:comment added by
658:
644:comment added by
584:comment added by
569:
555:comment added by
538:
524:comment added by
475:
461:comment added by
406:
392:comment added by
382:
368:comment added by
323:
309:comment added by
278:Ceramic materials
260:Ceramic Chemistry
232:More than enough
93:Ceramic_chemistry
73:Ceramic_chemistry
1118:
1101:
1022:
1007:
998:
987:
983:
846:
843:
840:
824:
805:
751:
748:
745:
727:
657:
638:
618:
615:
612:
596:
568:
549:
537:
518:
474:
455:
405:
386:
381:
362:
322:
303:
209:
208:
194:
146:
134:
116:
34:
1126:
1125:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1108:deletion review
1097:
1082:Smerdis of Tlön
1013:
989:
976:
899:GeoffreySuchart
844:
841:
838:
806:
749:
746:
743:
735:WP:SURMOUNTABLE
717:194.126.226.123
710:
646:194.126.226.123
639:
616:
613:
610:
579:
550:
519:
456:
419:WP:SURMOUNTABLE
387:
363:
304:
151:
142:
107:
91:
88:
76:
54:rough consensus
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1124:
1122:
1113:
1112:
1092:
1091:
1059:
1005:
1004:
1003:
985:
984:
973:
972:
971:
951:
930:
929:
928:
927:
910:
909:
888:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
802:
801:
794:
791:
788:
768:
762:
761:
728:
679:; Philippines
668:Strong support
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
629:
628:
598:
597:
586:115.87.208.163
570:
542:
541:
540:
539:
512:
511:
493:
476:
436:Strong support
433:
410:
409:
408:
407:
383:
353:
352:
327:
326:
325:
324:
297:
296:
257:and the older
212:
211:
148:
87:
86:
85:
77:
75:
70:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1123:
1111:
1109:
1105:
1100:
1094:
1093:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1080:otherwise. -
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1060:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1039:
1036:
1032:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1025:
1020:
1016:
1011:
1001:
996:
992:
986:
982:
980:
975:
974:
969:
965:
961:
957:
952:
949:
945:
941:
937:
932:
931:
926:
922:
918:
914:
913:
912:
911:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
889:
887:
883:
879:
875:
872:
869:
866:
863:
862:
855:
852:
851:
847:
835:
832:
827:
826:
822:
818:
814:
813:203.163.103.7
810:
804:
803:
799:
795:
792:
789:
786:
781:
777:
773:
769:
766:
765:
764:
763:
760:
757:
756:
752:
740:
736:
732:
729:
726:
722:
718:
714:
708:
705:
702:
699:
696:
693:
690:
687:
684:
681:
678:
675:
672:
669:
666:
665:
655:
651:
647:
643:
637:
633:
632:
631:
630:
627:
624:
623:
619:
607:
602:
601:
600:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
578:
574:
571:
566:
562:
558:
554:
547:
544:
543:
535:
531:
527:
526:203.163.103.7
523:
516:
515:
514:
513:
510:
506:
502:
497:
494:
492:
488:
484:
480:
477:
472:
468:
464:
463:203.163.103.7
460:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
434:
432:
428:
424:
420:
415:
412:
411:
403:
399:
395:
394:203.163.103.7
391:
384:
379:
375:
371:
370:203.163.103.7
367:
360:
357:
356:
355:
354:
351:
347:
343:
339:
337:
335:
332:
329:
328:
320:
316:
312:
311:203.163.103.7
308:
301:
300:
299:
298:
295:
291:
287:
286:Mike Agricola
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
261:
256:
254:
249:
247:
242:
241:(Wiley, 1996)
240:
235:
231:
228:
227:
226:
225:
221:
217:
216:KingSupernova
207:
203:
200:
197:
193:
189:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
157:
154:
153:Find sources:
149:
145:
141:
138:
132:
128:
124:
120:
115:
111:
106:
102:
98:
94:
90:
89:
84:
81:
74:
71:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1098:
1095:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1061:
1044:
1030:
1006:
977:
894:
890:
864:
849:
807:— Preceding
797:
784:
779:
775:
771:
754:
739:Valmet 361 D
730:
711:— Preceding
667:
640:— Preceding
621:
606:Valmet 361 D
580:— Preceding
572:
551:— Preceding
545:
520:— Preceding
495:
478:
457:— Preceding
435:
413:
388:— Preceding
364:— Preceding
330:
305:— Preceding
266:WP:POTENTIAL
259:
252:
245:
238:
229:
213:
201:
195:
187:
180:
174:
168:
162:
152:
139:
49:
47:
31:
28:
688:; Thailand
423:Mark viking
331:Speedy keep
178:free images
270:surmounted
248:(CRC 2010)
58:Malcolmxl5
1104:talk page
1019:talk page
995:talk page
960:• Gene93k
940:• Gene93k
37:talk page
1106:or in a
1049:Toffanin
979:Relisted
821:contribs
809:unsigned
713:unsigned
676:; Korea
673:; India
654:contribs
642:unsigned
582:unsigned
565:contribs
553:unsigned
534:contribs
522:unsigned
501:Lukeno94
471:contribs
459:unsigned
402:contribs
390:unsigned
378:contribs
366:unsigned
342:Lukeno94
319:contribs
307:unsigned
230:Comment:
137:View log
39:or in a
1070:Support
891:Support
731:Comment
573:Support
496:Comment
448:ceramic
444:pottery
274:Ceramic
184:WPÂ refs
172:scholar
110:protect
105:history
1078:delete
850:(talk)
755:(talk)
697:; USA
622:(talk)
156:Google
114:delete
52:. The
1035:Wiley
1010:civil
878:Diego
831:WP:RS
691:; UK
234:WP:RS
199:JSTOR
160:books
144:Stats
131:views
123:watch
119:links
16:<
1074:keep
1062:Keep
1053:talk
1031:Keep
1015:J04n
991:J04n
964:talk
944:talk
921:talk
903:talk
882:talk
865:Keep
839:Luke
817:talk
798:very
796:I'm
744:Luke
721:talk
650:talk
611:Luke
590:talk
561:talk
530:talk
505:talk
487:talk
479:Keep
467:talk
450:and
427:talk
414:Keep
398:talk
374:talk
346:talk
315:talk
290:talk
280:and
220:talk
192:FENS
166:news
127:logs
101:talk
97:edit
62:talk
50:keep
917:TCO
557:TCO
483:TCO
206:TWL
135:– (
1084:-
1055:)
966:)
958:.
946:)
938:.
923:)
905:)
895:IF
884:)
873:,
870:,
845:94
842:no
819:•
750:94
747:no
723:)
706:,
703:,
700:,
694:,
685:,
682:,
652:•
617:94
614:no
592:)
563:•
532:•
507:)
489:)
469:•
446:,
429:)
400:•
376:•
348:)
317:•
292:)
276:,
250:,
243:,
222:)
186:)
129:|
125:|
121:|
117:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
64:)
1051:(
1021:)
1017:(
997:)
993:(
962:(
942:(
919:(
901:(
880:(
815:(
719:(
648:(
588:(
559:(
528:(
503:(
485:(
465:(
425:(
396:(
372:(
344:(
313:(
288:(
218:(
210:)
202:·
196:·
188:·
181:·
175:·
169:·
163:·
158:(
150:(
147:)
140:·
133:)
95:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.